1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK L. MITCHELL,

Petitioner, No. 2:04-cv-0556 LKK JFM (HC) 

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, Warden,

et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2000 conviction on

charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of California Penal Code §

261.5, assault with the intent to commit oral copulation in violation of California Penal Code §

220, and sexual penetration with a foreign object with a person under eighteen years old, in

violation of California Penal Code § 289(a)(1), and the sentence of twelve years and eight

months imposed thereon.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The facts are taken from the opinion of the California Court of Appeal for the Third 1

Appellate District in People v. Mitchell, No. C037233 (Sept. 16, 2002), a copy of which is

attached as Exhibit D to Respondents’ Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed

August 23, 2004.

2

FACTS1

 In October 1998, the victim, Jessica, who was 15 years old, was

placed in the Hope for You group home because she violated

juvenile probation. [Petitioner], who turned 30 in January 1999,

was a counselor at the group home, beginning in December 1998.

 December 22, 1998

 The events of December 22, 1998, formed the basis for counts

one and two of the information. [Petitioner] was found not guilty

of counts one and two; however, the testimony concerning what

happened that day is presented for context in discussing the issues

on appeal.

 Jessica testified she went with [petitioner] and Linda, also a

group home resident, to a shopping center. On the way home, they

stopped at an apartment complex where Linda’s boyfriend lived so

Linda could drop off a gift. While she went in, [petitioner] and

Jessica waited in the car in the dark parking lot. [Petitioner] began

kissing Jessica, then put his hand up her skirt and digitally

penetrated her vagina. Linda came out of the apartment building

and asked if she could stay a little longer. [Petitioner] told her she

could and, after she went back in, he moved the car to a different

location in the parking lot. He reclined the passenger seat, again

digitally penetrated Jessica’s vagina, took her panties off, put on a

condom, and engaged in sexual intercourse with Jessica.

 January 2, 1999

 The events of January 2, 1999, formed the basis for counts three

through five of the information. [Petitioner] was found not guilty

of those counts.

 [Petitioner], Jessica, and Linda again went to the apartment

complex where Linda’s boyfriend lived on January 2, 1999, after

the girls spent the afternoon at Scandia, an amusement complex. 

While Linda went in to take some pictures to her boyfriend,

[petitioner] kissed Jessica and digitally penetrated her vagina. He

reclined the seat, put on a condom, turned Jessica around on his

knees, and engaged in sexual intercourse, entering the vagina from

behind.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

 Group Home Incidents

 The events forming the basis for counts six through eight, of

which [petitioner] was convicted, and count nine, of which

[petitioner] was found not guilty, occurred at the group home after

Jessica’s sixteenth birthday, which was January 23, 1999. After

ten o’clock one evening, after the other girls had gone to bed,

Jessica was in the staff office sitting on a couch with [petitioner]. 

The lights were off. [Petitioner] stood Jessica up and turned her

back towards him, then digitally penetrated her vagina. He asked

her to go get a condom, which she did, retrieving a condom from

her purse. After some difficulty obtaining an erection and the

interruption of a knock at the door, [petitioner] had Jessica go get

another condom. When she returned, he put the condom on and

they engaged in sexual intercourse.

 On February 16, 1999, the girls, except Jessica, were in their

rooms at 10:00 p.m. Jessica was in the kitchen getting a drink of

water. [Petitioner] came into the kitchen, turned Jessica around

with her back against the refrigerator, and digitally penetrated her

vagina. He picked her up and walked her over to a wall by the

living room, inserting and withdrawing his fingers into and from

her vagina until it began to hurt her. [Petitioner] picked up Jessica

and took her into the den. He sat her on the end of a chair, and

again inserted and withdrew his fingers into and from her vagina. 

This time he pushed harder, causing her so much pain that she

cried. Despite her pleas for him to stop, he continued. After

several minutes, [petitioner] pulled his penis out of his clothing

and pushed her head down. Jessica closed her mouth, tried to pull

her head up, and moved her head from side to side to avoid orally

copulating him. [Petitioner], laughing, pushed his penis up toward

her mouth, but Jessica, who was still crying, turned her head so

that it hit her cheek. After several more minutes of this,

[petitioner] allowed Jessica to leave.

 The next day, Jessica continued to experience pain in her vagina

and told one of the counselors she needed to go to the doctor. 

When taken there, she told the physician she was experiencing

vaginal pain but said the pain was from leaving a tampon in too

long instead of telling the doctor the pain was caused by

[petitioner]’s assault. On February 18, 1999, Jessica told another

counselor and the program administrator about the sexual incidents

with [petitioner]. She showed the administrator a bruise on her

knee she received when, during the second incident in the car, she

knelt on a seatbelt. She also showed him a condom wrapper from

the encounter in the staff office.

 On February 24, 1999, Jessica was still feeling pain in her

vagina. A nurse practitioner did a pelvic examination and found an

abrasion about two centimeters long on Jessica’s labia minora. 

The injury was consistent with digital penetration.

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

 Defense

 [Petitioner] testified, denying any sexual contact with Jessica. 

He presented other witnesses to show inconsistencies in Jessica’s

statements. When Officer Terrence Brass interviewed Jessica, she

told him all of the sexual contact was against her will. She also

told James Ross, an investigator from the district attorney’s office

that [petitioner] forced her to engage in sexual intercourse with

him during the two incidents in the car. The family practice doctor

who examined Jessica on February 17, 1999, the day after the last

incident, did not observe an abrasion or any other source of

Jessica’s pain.

People v. Mitchell, slip op. at 2-6.

ANALYSIS

I. Standards for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for any claim decided on the merits in

state court proceedings unless the state court's adjudication of the claim:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

Under section 2254(d)(1), a state court decision is “contrary to” clearly

established United States Supreme Court precedents if it applies a rule that contradicts the

governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases, or if it confronts a set of facts that are materially

indistinguishable from a decision of the Supreme Court and nevertheless arrives at different

result. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 7 (2002) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-406

(2000)). 

Under the “unreasonable application” clause of section 2254(d)(1), a federal

habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle

from the Supreme Court’s decisions, but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 4 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 At page 6 of the petition, petitioner lists the following as Ground N: “Sufficiency of 2

evidence implicit in the duty of a reviewing court to determine” and he cites to pages viii through

x of an attached petition. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed March 19, 2004, at 6. The

cited pages contain legal standards for evaluating whether there has been a fundamental

miscarriage of justice, and an argument that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing

argument by expressing her opinion that petitioner was guilty. The court finds that Ground N

does not state a claim for relief separate from the thirteen claims raised in the petition.

5

prisoner’s case. Williams, 529 U.S. at 413. A federal habeas court “may not issue the writ

simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court

decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that

application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 412; see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75

(2003) (it is “not enough that a federal habeas court, in its independent review of the legal

question, is left with a ‘firm conviction’ that the state court was ‘erroneous.’”) 

The court looks to the last reasoned state court decision as the basis for the state

court judgment. Avila v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 2002). Where the state court

reaches a decision on the merits but provides no reasoning to support its conclusion, a federal

habeas court independently reviews the record to determine whether habeas corpus relief is

available under section 2254(d). Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2000).

II. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner raises thirteen claims for relief in his petition, including three claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel, four claims of prosecutorial misconduct, one claim of trial court

error, two claims of instructional error, and three challenges to his sentence. Petitioner’s claims 2

of ineffective assistance of counsel are the first three claims in the petition. However, because

some of petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel arise from the events underlying

his claims of prosecutorial misconduct, the court will address the claims of prosecutorial

misconduct first.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 5 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

A. Prosecutorial Misconduct

Petitioner raises four claims of prosecutorial misconduct. In Claim IV, he alleges

that the prosecution unlawfully suppressed exculpatory material in violation of Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In Claim V, he alleges that the prosecution improperly

introduced false testimony and allowed perjured testimony to stand uncorrected. In Claim VI, he

alleges that the prosecution knowingly allowed “government agents to tamper with evidence and

give false testimony.” Petition at 5(C). Finally, in Claim VII he alleges that the prosecution

allowed the state’s expert witness to give false testimony during both direct and crossexamination. These claims were raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the California

Supreme Court which was denied in an order that contained no statement of reasons for the

decision. See Exs. G and H to Answer. 

1. Suppression of Exculpatory Material

Petitioner’s first claim of prosecutorial misconduct is that the prosecution

suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady, supra. Specifically, during the trial

testimony of Detective Flaa the detective read from a transcript of a videotape of an interview

with the victim. Petitioner claims that defense counsel had no knowledge the transcript would be

admitted at trial and had no copy of either the videotape or the transcript. Petitioner further

alleges that the prosecutor stated on the record that she had told defense counsel prior to trial that

the tape was inaudible and would not be offered in evidence and also stated, falsely, that the

videotape and transcripts had been turned over to defense counsel. Petitioner also claims that the

prosecutor committed misconduct by offering evidence of a transcript of an interview with

petitioner that occurred before trial, which had also not been turned over to defense counsel. 

Respondent contends that this claim is foreclosed by the trial court’s factual finding that the

prosecution did turn over the videotapes and transcripts at issue.

During cross-examination of petitioner, the prosecutor began to question

petitioner about a meeting he had with Detective Flaa on February 18, 1999. Reporter’s

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 6 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

Transcript on Appeal (RT) at 913. Shortly after this line of questioning began, defense counsel

asked for a sidebar conference. Id. Thereafter, there was a lengthy exchange between the

prosecutor and defense counsel concerning two videotapes, including one of petitioner’s meeting

with Detective Flaa, and transcripts of the contents of those videotapes in which defense counsel

represented that he had not received either transcript and that he was unaware that petitioner’s

interview with the detective had been videotaped. Id. at 913-921. The prosecutor represented

that she had provided all of the discovery at issue to petitioner’s prior counsel more than a year

before trial. Id. at 914-17, 921. At the conclusion of the discussion, the trial court found that the

videotapes and transcripts had been provided to petitioner’s prior defense counsel by the district

attorney. Id. at 921. 

The trial court’s factual finding is “presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and

convincing evidence or unless based on an unreasonable evidentiary foundation.” Gonzalez v.

Pliler, 341 F.3d 897, 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) & 2254(e)(1) and Zichko

v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001)). In support of his contention that the trial court’s

factual finding was wrong, petitioner submits five documents styled “Sacramento County District

Attorney Discovery Record” which catalogue documents produced to defense counsel on five

separate occasions between October 7, 1999 and June 13, 2000. Exs. A-E to Appendix to

Petition, filed March 19, 2004. There is no description of the documents produced on any of the

records, and none reflect production of a videotape. Id. Petitioner has presented no evidence that

these five documents reflect all of the discovery produced, and it appears they do not. During the

hearing, the prosecutor represented that on February 17, 2000, she had “discovered a 50-page

MDIC transcript, and that’s logged in our discovery notes.” RT at 917. None of petitioner’s

exhibits are dated February 17, 2000. 

Petitioner has failed to rebut the trial court’s factual finding that the material in

question was produced to petitioner’s prior attorney. The state court’s rejection of this claim was 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 7 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 On redirect examination, the victim testified that her trial testimony was truthful. RT at 3

582.

8

neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of applicable principles of clearly established

federal law. Petitioner’s fourth claim for relief should be denied. 

2. Introduction of False Testimony/Allowing Perjury to Stand Uncorrected

Petitioner’s fifth claim is that the prosecution improperly introduced false

testimony and allowed perjured testimony to stand uncorrected. His sixth claim is that the

prosecution knowingly allowed “government agents to tamper with evidence and give false

testimony.” Petition at 5(C). His seventh claim is that the prosecution allowed the state’s expert

witness to give false testimony during both direct and cross-examination. 

The Supreme Court has long held that a conviction obtained using

knowingly perjured testimony violates due process. Mooney v.

Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935). In

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217

(1959), the Court made clear that this prohibition against the use of

false testimony applies even when the testimony in question was

relevant only to the witness’s credibility. Id. at 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173.

A claim under Napue will succeed when “(1) the testimony (or

evidence) was actually false, (2) the prosecution knew or should

have known that the testimony was actually false, and (3) the false

testimony was material.” Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972, 984 (9th

Cir.2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and alteration

omitted). 

Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057, 1071 (9th Cir. 2008). 

In his fifth claim, petitioner alleges that the victim perjured herself numerous

times in her trial testimony, and that she admitted on cross-examination that she had lied so that

petitioner “would go to jail.” Petition at 24. Petitioner has presented no evidence to support this

allegation. The record reflects that petitioner’s trial attorney cross-examined the victim

extensively concerning whether she had lied about the incidents and other matters prior to

testifying at trial. However, the victim’s testimony on cross-examination does not establish

either that her trial testimony was actually false or that the prosecution knew or should have

known that her testimony was false. 

3

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 8 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

Petitioner also claims that the prosecution’s witness, Terry L., testified falsely

concerning what she had told Officer Flaa about the incident that she interrupted between

petitioner and the victim. Specifically, Officer Flaa’s report indicated that Terry L. had reported

that she had walked into petitioner’s office, found him at the desk with all the lights off, and

“thought [she] saw a girl in the room also, but . . . wasn’t sure.” Ex. F to Petition. At trial, Terry

L. testified that she had not told Officer Flaa she thought she saw a girl in the room, but that she

had told him she “heard somebody else in the room.” RT at 984. At most, this testimony might

constitute evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. Petitioner has not presented any evidence

that this testimony was false, or that the prosecution knew it was false.

In petitioner’s sixth claim, he alleges that the prosecution knowingly allowed

“government agents to tamper with evidence and give false testimony.” Petition at 5(C). His

seventh claim is that the prosecution allowed the state’s expert witness to give false testimony

during both direct and cross-examination. 

Petitioner’s sixth claim arises from the trial testimony of Detective Ross,

Detective Flaa, and Officer Brass. With respect to Detective Ross, petitioner points to his

testimony that no other witnesses had been present during his interview with prosecution witness

Olivia W., see RT at 744-45, while Olivia W. testified that another witness had been present

when she arrived for the interview with Detective Ross and stayed in the room during the

interview. RT at 733-34. In fact, Detective Ross testified that he asked the other witness to leave

after Olivia W. arrived and introductions were made. RT at 772. Petitioner also points to

various statements by Olivia W. during cross-examination in which she denied making

statements in Detective Ross’ report that were attributed to her. None of the testimony cited by

petitioner supports a finding that Detective Ross tampered with evidence or gave false testimony. 

Petitioner also cites testimony from Detective Flaa that police officers can, during interviews,

sometimes hear things that aren’t actually said and that police reports can be “inaccurate or

incorrect in some fashion.” RT at 798. Finally, petitioner cites testimony from Officer Brass that

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 9 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

he had attributed the word “consent” to the victim after she told him that she had feared for her

safety and then “did it or something to that extent.” See RT at 808. None of this testimony

supports a finding that the police reports in this case were tampered with or false in any material

respect. 

Finally, in his seventh claim petitioner alleges that prosecution expert witness

Nurse Practitioner Green gave false testimony concerning a physical examination of the victim. 

See Petition at 42-45. Petitioner has presented no evidence that any of the cited portions of

Nurse Practitioner Green’s testimony, or any other portion of her testimony, was false.

The state court’s rejection of these claims was neither contrary to nor an

unreasonable application of applicable principles of clearly established federal law. Petitioner’s

fifth, sixth and seventh claims for relief should be denied. 

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Petitioner argues that both his trial and appellate counsel provided constitutionally

ineffective assistance. See Petition filed March 19, 2004 at 5(A) and 5(b). These claims were

raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the California Supreme Court which was denied

in an order that contained no statement of reasons for the decision. See Exs. G and H to Answer. 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the effective assistance of counsel. The United

States Supreme Court set forth the test for demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel in

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). First, a petitioner must show that, considering

all the circumstances, counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. To this end, petitioner must identify the acts or omissions that are

alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment. Id. at 690. The federal

court must then determine whether in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or

omissions were outside the wide range of professional competent assistance. Id. “We strongly

presume that counsel’s conduct was within the wide range of reasonable assistance, and that he 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 10 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11

exercised acceptable professional judgment in all significant decisions made.” Hughes v. Borg,

898 F.2d 695, 702 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). 

Second, a petitioner must affirmatively prove prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at

693. Prejudice is found where “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694. A

reasonable probability is “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id.;

see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 391-92; Laboa v. Calderon, 224 F.3d 972, 981 (9th Cir.

2000). A reviewing court “need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient

before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies . . .

If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . .

. that course should be followed.” Pizzuto v. Arave, 280 F.3d 949, 955 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697).

The Strickland standards apply to appellate counsel as well as trial counsel. Smith

v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285 (2000); Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 535-36 (1986); Miller v.

Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir. 1989). In order to demonstrate prejudice in this context,

petitioner must demonstrate that, but for counsel’s errors, he probably would have prevailed on

appeal. Miller, 882 F.2d at 1434 n.9. 

1. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

Petitioner’s first claim is that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to

raise on direct appeal the Brady claim raised as Claim IV in the instant petition, and in failing to

raise on direct appeal a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object on

constitutional grounds to the exclusion of evidence of the victim’s other sexual experiences 

a. Failure to Object to Brady Violation

For the reasons set forth in section II.A.1, supra, petitioner’s Brady claim is

without merit. A fortiori, petitioner was not prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to raise the

claim on direct appeal. The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to nor an

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 11 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12

unreasonable application of applicable principles of clearly established federal law. This claim

should be denied.

b. Failure to Raise Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel Claim

Petitioner also claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a

claim that trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to preserve for appellate review a

constitutional challenge to the exclusion of evidence of the victim’s sexual relationship with her

boyfriend. On direct appeal, petitioner’s appellate counsel raised both statutory and 

constitutional challenges to the exclusion of such evidence. Ex. A to Answer at 12-30. Petitioner

claimed that the exclusion of such evidence “severely undercut” his defense, which was to

challenge the victim’s credibility. Id. at 13. The state court of appeal rejected the constitutional

claim on the ground that it “was not preserved for appeal because [petitioner] did not make the

constitutional argument in the trial court.” Ex. D to Answer, People v. Mitchell, slip op. at 6. The

state court of appeal also rejected petitioner’s claim, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that

the failure to preserve the constitutional issues in the trial court was the result of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel. Id. at 7. 

A criminal defendant has the right, protected by the Sixth Amendment, to confront

witnesses and to present a defense. See Woods v. State of Alaska, 957 F.2d 1544, 1549 (9th Cir.

1992). “These rights encompass the rights to cross-examination, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308,

315-16, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), and to present relevant evidence, Michigan

v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 1746-47, 114 L.Ed.2d 205, 212 (1991).” Id. However,

[e]ven relevant evidence can be excluded in certain circumstances.

The right to present relevant testimony “may, in appropriate cases,

bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial

process.” Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S.Ct.

1038, 1046, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). The Supreme Court has

recognized that a state has a legitimate interest in protecting rape

victims against unwarranted invasions of privacy and harassment

regarding their sexual conduct. Lucas, 500 U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at

1146, 114 L.Ed.2d at 212. Also, “trial judges retain wide latitude

insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose

reasonable limits on ... cross-examination based on concerns about,

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 12 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues,

the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only

marginally relevant.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679,

106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986).

Id. In determining whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the exclusion

of evidence, the court “make[s] a two-part inquiry.” Id. at 1550. First, the court looks at “whether

the excluded evidence is relevant” and, if it is, the court considers “whether other legitimate

interests outweighed [the defendant]’s interest in presenting the evidence.” Id.

In rejecting petitioner’s statutory challenge to the exclusion of this evidence, the

state court of appeal made the following relevant findings:

 Here, after a hearing and argument, the trial court found lacking

the probative value of the evidence concerning Jessica’s sexual

relationship with her boyfriend, especially to support the argument

she fabricated her accusations against [petitioner] using what she

had learned about sexual matters from her contemporaneous

relationship with her boyfriend. We agree that whatever probative

value this evidence may have had was minimal. During the hearing,

Jessica testified she had unprotected sexual intercourse with her

boyfriend. No further details concerning their sexual relationship

were elicited. Yet [petitioner] claims he could have used the

evidence to show she used what she learned from her experiences

with her boyfriend in fabricating accusations against [petitioner]. 

Since the only evidence concerning the sexual relationship with the

boyfriend is that they had unprotected sexual intercourse, there

appears to be little correlation with the allegations she made against

[petitioner] -- the use of condoms, different positions, digital

penetration, and other details.

 The prejudicial effect, on the other hand, was much more

significant. The public policy of California, as reflected in

Evidence Code section 1103, subdivision (c), is not to allow a

defendant to put the victim on trial by presenting evidence of other

sexual conduct. Excluding evidence of other sexual conduct in

cases such as this in which the evidence is only minimally probative

with respect to credibility gives effect to the legislative intent to

limit public exposure of the victim’s other sexual conduct.

Ex. D to Answer, People v. Mitchell, slip op. at 11-12. The state court of appeal’s finding that

petitioner’s proposed evidence was only “minimally probative” and of marginal relevance at best

is fully supported by the record, as is the court’s determination that California’s public policy

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 13 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14

interests outweighed petitioner’s interest in presenting this evidence. There is no reasonable

probability that the outcome of petitioner’s appeal would have been different had counsel raised a 

claim that petitioner’s trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to preserve the constitutional

claims for appellate review. 

The state court’s rejection of petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of

appellate counsel was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of applicable principles

of clearly established federal law. This claim should be denied. 

2. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

Petitioner also raises two claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In Claim

II, petitioner claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to preserve for appeal issues

related to the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of the victim’s concurrent sexual

relationship with her boyfriend. For the reasons set forth in section II.B.1.b, supra, there is no

reasonable probability that the outcome of petitioner’s trial would have been different had trial

counsel preserved such issues for appeal. The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither

contrary to nor an unreasonable application of applicable principles of clearly established federal

law. This claim should be denied. 

In Claim III, petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to

object to admission of the alleged Brady material that is the subject of petitioner’s claim of

prosecutorial misconduct, supra. Petitioner’s claim that his trial counsel failed to object to

admission of this evidence is not supported by the record. Moreover, for the reasons discussed in

section II.A.1, supra, petitioner’s Brady claim is without merit. A fortiori, his trial counsel was

not ineffective in connection with the admission of this material. The state court’s rejection of

this claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of applicable principles of

clearly established federal law. This claim should be denied.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 14 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Respondents contend, inter alia, that this claim is procedurally barred due to petitioner’s 4

failure to raise a constitutional objection at trial. It is apparent to this court that the claim is

without merit. Accordingly, this court will not address the procedural default defense. 

15

C. Trial Court Error

Petitioner’s eighth claim is that his constitutional rights were violated by the trial

court’s decision to exclude his proposed evidence of the victim’s contemporaneous relationship

with her boyfriend. See Section II.B.1.b, supra. For the reasons set forth in section II.B.1.b,

supra, exclusion of this evidence did not violate petitioner’s constitutional rights. The state

court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of

applicable principles of clearly established federal law. This claim should be denied.4

D. Instructional Error

Petitioner raises two claims of instructional error. In Claim IX, he contends that

the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the meaning of the term “material

part” as used in CALJIC No. 2.21.2, which was given as part of the overall charge to the jury. In

Claim X, petitioner contends that the use of CALJIC No. 1.00 impermissibly reduced the

prosecution’s burden of proof. The last reasoned state court rejection of these claims is the

decision of the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District on petitioner’s direct

appeal. See Ex. D to Answer, People v. Mitchell, slip op. at 12-14. 

1. CALJIC No. 2.21.2

The state court of appeal rejected petitioner’s challenge to the failure to define

“material part” as follows:

 [Petitioner] argues that the term “material part” as used in

CALJIC 2.21.2 was a technical term that needed to be defined sua

sponte by the court. The argument is without merit.

 The trial court instructed the jury on the issue of witness

credibility using the language of CALJIC No. 2.21.2, as follows: 

“A witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her

testimony, is to be distrusted in others. [¶] You may reject the

whole testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely to a

material point unless from all the evidence you believe the

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 15 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16

probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars.” 

(Italics added.) 

 “[A]s used in [CALJIC No. 2.21.2], ‘material’ carries its

ordinary meaning of ‘substantial, essential, relevant or pertinent.’

The instruction . . . tells the jury it can distrust a witness who is

willfully false in giving relevant or pertinent testimony.” (People v.

Wade, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1495-1496.) Thus, contrary to

[petitioner]’s contention, “when . . . a phrase ‘is commonly

understood by those familiar with the English language and is not

used in a technical sense peculiar to the law, the court is not

required to give an instruction as to its meaning in the absence of a

request.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238,

270-271.)

 [Petitioner]’s reliance on People v. Pierce (1967) 66 Cal.2d. 53

is misplaced. Pierce “held the test for materiality as an element of

the crime of perjury is ‘whether the statement could probably have

influenced the outcome of the proceedings . . . .’ [¶] However, read

in the context of CALJIC No. 2.21.2, it is clear that ‘material’ is not

used in the sense described in Pierce, i.e., as probably influencing

the outcome. It would make no sense to tell the jury that it could

distrust a false witness only if the falsity influenced the outcome of

the case.” (People v. Wade, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 1496.) 

Neither Pierce nor the other cases cited by [petitioner] require a

court to characterize the phrase “material part” as a technical term

requiring further definition in all cases where that phrase is used. 

Because [petitioner] did not request the court to instruct the jury on

the definition of “material part” there was no error in the instruction

as given.

Id. at 13-14.

A challenge to jury instructions does not generally state a federal constitutional

claim. See Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021

(1986) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195,

1197 (9th Cir. 1983). Habeas corpus is unavailable for alleged error in the interpretation or

application of state law. Middleton, 768 F.2d at 1085; see also Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805,

814 (9th Cir. 1987); Givens v. Housewright, 786 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). However, a

“claim of error based upon a right not specifically guaranteed by the Constitution may nonetheless

form a ground for federal habeas corpus relief where its impact so infects the entire trial that the

resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process.” Hines v. Enomoto, 658 F.2d

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 16 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Petitioner’s reliance on state law in this context is misplaced. As noted above, federal 5

habeas corpus relief is unavailable for errors in the interpretation and application of state law. 

17

667, 673 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Quigg v. Crist, 616 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449

U.S. 922 (1980)); see also Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941). 

In order to warrant federal habeas relief, a challenged jury instruction “cannot be

merely ‘undesirable, erroneous, or even “universally condemned,”’ but must violate some due

process right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment.” Prantil v. California, 843 F.2d 314, 317

(9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 861 (1988) (quoting Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146

(1973)). To prevail, petitioner must demonstrate that an erroneous instruction “‘so infected the

entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62,

72 (1991) (quoting Cupp, 414 U.S. at 147). In making its determination, this court must evaluate

the challenged jury instructions “‘in the context of the overall charge to the jury as a component of

the entire trial process.’” Prantil, 843 F.2d at 817 (quoting Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1239

(9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984)). Further, in reviewing an allegedly ambiguous

instruction, the court “must inquire ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has

applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” Estelle, 502 U.S. at

72 (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 (1990)). Petitioner’s burden is “especially

heavy” when the court fails to give an instruction. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 155 (1977). 

To support this claim, petitioner relies on one federal case that involves the term

“material” as an element of a criminal offense. See Petition at 55, citing U.S. v. Gaudin, 515 U.S.

506 (1995) (requiring the question of the “materiality” of a false statement to be tendered to the

jury in criminal prosecution for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001). Petitioner’s challenge here is to

5

an alleged failure to further define the term “material” in an instruction permitting the jury to

disregard testimony from a witness. The precedent cited by petitioner has no bearing on the claim

at bar. Moreover, the trial court’s failure to define this term in no way rendered petitioner’s trial

fundamentally unfair. The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to nor an

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 17 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

18

unreasonable application of applicable principles of clearly established federal law. This claim

should be denied.

2. CALJIC No. 1.00

The state court of appeal rejected petitioner’s challenge to the use of CALJIC No.

1.00 as follows:

 [Petitioner] contends the court’s use of CALJIC No. 1.00 to

instruct the jury impermissibly lessened the prosecutor’s burden of

proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and created confusion

among the jurors. We disagree.

 CALJIC No. 1.00 advised the jury they “must not be biased

against a defendant because he has been arrested for this offense,

charged with a crime or brought to trial. [¶] None of these

circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume

from any or all of them that a defendant is more likely to be guilty

than not guilty.”

 We have held CALJIC No. 1.00's use of the phrase “more likely

to be guilty than not guilty” does not lessen the prosecutor’s burden

of proof. (People v. Wade (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1491.) 

“The jury would not have construed the instruction in the manner

suggested by defendant. A reasonable juror would understand this

instruction as an advisement to disregard the facts that defendant

had been arrested, charged, and brought to trial, and to presume the

defendant innocent.” (Ibid.) 

 [Petitioner]’s reliance on People v. Dail (1943) 22 Cal.2d 642 is

misplaced. “Unlike the Dail case, . . . the jurors were not misled by

the giving of one erroneous and one correct instruction covering the

same subject. They were clearly and correctly instructed according

to the law applicable to . . . distinct issues . . . .” (People v.

Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 272.) CALJIC No. 1.00 does not

unfairly mislead the jury by impermissibly lessening the

prosecutor’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ex. D to Answer, People v. Mitchell, slip op. at 12-13.

The standards relevant to this claim are taken from a decision of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 768 (9th Cir. 2009)

 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires

that the prosecution prove every element of a criminal offense

beyond a reasonable doubt. Gibson [v. Ortiz], 387 F.3d [812] at 820

[(9th Cir. 2004)] (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct.

1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)). “Any jury instruction that ‘reduce[s]

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 18 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

19

the level of proof necessary for the Government to carry its burden

... is plainly inconsistent with the constitutionally rooted

presumption of innocence.’ ” Id. (quoting Cool v. United States,

409 U.S. 100, 104, 93 S.Ct. 354, 34 L.Ed.2d 335 (1972)). When a

jury instruction is erroneous because it misdescribes the burden of

proof, it “vitiates all the jury’s findings,” and no verdict within the

meaning of the Sixth Amendment is rendered. Sullivan v.

Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 281, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182

(1993). “Where such an error exists, it is considered structural and

thus is not subject to harmless error review.” Gibson, 387 F.3d at

820 (citing Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 280-82, 113 S.Ct. 2078).

 Conversely, if the instructions in question are considered

“ambiguous,” then they will only violate due process if “a

reasonable likelihood exists that the jury has applied the challenged

instruction[s] in a manner that violates the Constitution.” Id. at

820-21(citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475,

116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991)); see also Mejia v. Garcia, 534 F.3d 1036,

1041-42 (9th Cir.2008). Unless there is a likelihood that the jury

applied the instructions in a way that lessens the prosecution’s

burden of proof, we review instructional error under the harmless

error standard. See Hedgpeth v. Pulido, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 530,

532, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2008). All challenged instructions must be

considered in light of all of the jury instructions and the trial record

as a whole. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-47, 94 S.Ct. 396,

38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973).

Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d at 768.

After review of the record, this court finds no reasonable likelihood that the jury

applied CALJIC No. 1.00 to reduce the prosecution’s burden of proof. The state court’s rejection

of this claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of applicable principles of

clearly established federal law. This claim should be denied.

E. Sentencing Error

Petitioner’s final three claims allege errors in his sentence. As noted above,

petitioner was convicted on three counts. He was sentenced to “the middle term of four years for

assault with intent to commit oral copulation,; a consecutive eight months (one-third of the middle

term) for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor; and a full, consecutive, upper term of eight

years for sexual penetration by force.” Ex. D to Answer, People v. Mitchell, slip op. at 2. 

Petitioner’s eleventh claim is that his sentence must be vacated because the trial court erred in

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 19 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

20

applying “the mandatory full consecutive sentencing.” Petition at 5(F). Petitioner’s twelfth claim

is that the sentence must be vacated because the trial court, rather than the jury, made factual

determinations relied on at sentencing. Finally, petitioner’s thirteenth claim is that his sentence is

cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Petitioner’s eleventh claim is based solely on state law. See Attachment to Petition

at 60-61. Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable for alleged errors in the application of state

sentencing law. See Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner’s

eleventh claim for relief is not cognizable in this action.

The last reasoned rejection of petitioner’s twelfth claim is the decision of the state

court of appeal on petitioner’s direct appeal, which rejected the claim as follows:

 [Petitioner] contends the consecutive sentence was improperly

imposed because the trial court and not the jury made the

determination that the sexual offenses occurred on separate

occasions. The contention is without merit.

 [Petitioner] bases this argument on Apprendi v. New Jersey

(2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi). Apprendi

addressed “whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment requires that a factual determination authorizing an

increase in the maximum prison sentence for an offense from 10 to

20 years be made by a jury on the basis of proof beyond a

reasonable doubt.” (Id. at p. 469.) 

. . . .

 Apprendi does not support [petitioner]’s position. The sentence

imposed by the trial court did not exceed the maximum terms for

the crimes found by the jury. The court found the offenses were

perpetrated on separate occasions, which was a sentencing factor

used in determining the sentence, within the statutory maximum, to

be imposed. Thus, the holding in Apprendi that a sentencing

enhancement that increases the sentence beyond the statutory

maximum must be decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 20 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 [Petitioner] asserts that, because three California cases refer to consecutive sentences as 6

enhancements [citations omitted], Apprendi requires that the jury determine whether facts exist

to support consecutive sentencing. This argument fails because, for the purpose of considering

constitutional due process claims, Apprendi, not the California cases, defines “enhancement.” 

The California cases do not purport to define “enhancement” for the purpose of applying due

process analysis; instead, they discuss only the dual use of facts under sentencing statutes. As

noted in the text above, consecutive sentencing does not fall within the definition of

“enhancement” under Apprendi. 

21

 does not apply here. The trial court’s application of consecutive

sentencing did not violate [petitioner]’s due process rights.

6

Ex. D to Answer, People v. Mitchell, slip op. at 19-21.

California law requires imposition of 

[a] full, separate and consecutive term . . for each violation of an

offense specified in subdivision (e) [including the crimes of which

petitioner was convicted] if the crimes involve separate victims or

involve the same victim on separate occasions.

 In determining whether crimes against a single victim were

committed on separate occasions under this subdivision, the court

shall consider whether, between the commission of one sex crime

and another, the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to reflect

on his or her actions and nevertheless resumed sexually assaultive

behavior. Neither the duration of time between crimes, nor whether

or not the defendant lost or abandoned his or her opportunity to

attack, shall be, in and of itself, determinative on the issue of

whether the crimes in question occurred on separate occasions.

Cal. Penal Code § 667.6(d). At sentencing, the trial court found that each of the three offenses

were committed on separate occasions. See RT at 1238-39. The court therefore ordered that the

sentences imposed for each count be served consecutively. Id. at 1239.

“The rule in Apprendi only applies where a defendant is sentenced above the

statutory maximum sentence for an offense. United States v. Sanchez, 269 F.3d 1250, 1268 (11th

Cir.2001) (en banc). Apprendi does not prohibit a sentencing court from imposing consecutive

sentences on multiple counts of conviction as long as each is within the applicable statutory

maximum.” U.S. v. Davis, 329 F.3d 1250, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003). None of the sentences imposed

on each count individually exceeded the statutory maximum and there was no violation of

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 21 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

22

Apprendi in the trial court’s decision to run the sentences consecutively. The state court’s

rejection of this claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of applicable

principles of clearly established federal law. This claim should be denied.

The state court of appeal found that petitioner’s claim that his sentence violated the

Eighth Amendment was waived because he did not raise the claim at sentencing and because the

claim was without merit. Ex. D to Answer, People v. Mitchell, slip op. at 21-24. Respondents

contend that the claim is procedurally barred and, in any event, that petitioner’s sentence does not

constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 

Only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime violate the

Eighth Amendment. United States v. Bland, 961 F.2d 123, 129 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Harmelin

v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)). Petitioner’s sentence is not

grossly disproportionate to the crimes of which he was convicted. The state court’s rejection of

this claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of applicable principles of

clearly established federal law. This claim should be denied. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 22 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

23

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 17, 2010.

12

mitc0556.157

Case 2:04-cv-00556-LKK -JFM Document 29 Filed 02/18/10 Page 23 of 23